Should the U.S. Open shorten men's matches to best-of-three sets?

In recent years, the debate about whether men should continue playing best-of-five matches at Grand Slams has intensified, most recently with a piece in The New York Times by Juliet Macur, who suggests the best-of-five format is an antiquated relic of a sexist past that has a detrimental effect on the conditioning of men’s players.

Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Is there a compromise to be had? FTW looks at both sides of the issue.

3 reasons to change to best-of-three

1. The one-way traffic matches become more entertaining (or less boring)

(Getty Images)

The first few days of every Grand Slam play out the same way: A smattering of mild upsets on the outer courts, while the show courts feature big-time players dominating unknowns. If Novak Djokovic wins the first two sets against the world No. 115 by scores of 6-1 and 6-2, why bother playing another? Harlem Globetrotters games and WWE matches are more unpredictable than the third set of such matches.

2. Easier to schedule

Scheduling a Grand Slam is a thankless task. There are so many complications, from weather to withdrawals to players playing in multiple events (singles, doubles, mixed doubles). The hardest part may be budgeting time for all the potential four-hour epics that can come from best-of-five matches. It’s hard on the fans, television networks and viewers, not to mention the players, who are affected the most.

Whereas athletes in other sports almost always know what time they’re set to take the field, tennis players are in a constant state of limbo. They can prepare to get on a court after one player takes a two-set lead, only to find themselves waiting three more hours during an epic comeback. (That’s what happened to 15-year-old CiCi Bellis on Thursday. Simone Bolleli was up 2-0 on Tommy Robredo, before the Spaniard started his comeback. The match went on so long that Bellis wandered out to watch the fourth set in person.) A best-of-three wouldn’t fully solve this problem, nor would it make scheduling a breeze, but it’s a start.

3. Equality

(Getty Images)

There are two kinds of equality here. The first was the overarching theme of the Macur piece: Women’s players get equal prize money, so why shouldn’t they play equal sets? Is the difference a sexist relic of the 1950s? The second is equality between men’s players. The idea was best stated in the Macur piece by Martina Navratilova, who wondered why it’s fair for one player to coast in an easy draw while a future opponent might be stuck playing grueling five-setters.

3 reasons to stay with best-of-five

1. If it ain’t broke …

(AP)

Sports have to modernize, which is why we have tiebreakers, replay challenges, stadium WiFi and iPhone apps. But tradition matters too. The men have played a best-of-five at Wimbledon since its creation in 1877. The U.S. Open has used the same format since its first tournament in 1881. We’re going to change that because Ivan Dodig didn’t have enough stamina to finish a five-set match?

2. Playing best-of-five ensures fewer upsets

This is only a theory, but one based in some statistical analysis. With the help of the invaluable tennisabstract.com, I looked at the winning percentages of each Big Four player (Djokovic, Federer, Murray, Nadal) in each of the past three years, examining their record in best-of-three and best-of-five matches. With only one exception, the yearly winning percentage of The Big Four in best-of-five matches was higher than their winning percentage in best-of-three matches. (The lone exception was Roger Federer in 2012.)

Mostly, the margins were small. Djokovic has won 89.5% of his best-of-five matches in 2014 compared to 86.2% of his best-of-three. Sometimes they’re bigger (particularly with Murray). But it’s also not an apples-to-apples comparison. Grand Slams have deeper fields and more matches, which can help boost a win total. Players also gear their seasons toward the majors. Whereas a first-round loss at Wimbledon is devastating, a first-round loss at Queen’s Club isn’t.

(Getty Images)

Even so, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who would argue that beating Rafael Nadal in a best-of-three is easier than beating him in a best-of-five. Keeping the longer matches can help ensure a better field at the end. Isn’t that what we all want?

Macur makes the argument that going up 2 sets almost always ensures victory. That’s true — it happens in about 90% of such matches. But the other 10% is what makes it worth it. If sitting through a boring, 45-minute set in a first-round match between Federer and an overmatched journeyman is the cost of getting a five-set thriller like Federer and Djokovic played at Wimbledon, isn’t that acceptable?

3. Best-of-five matches are more dramatic

(Getty Images)

Some of the things that make best-of-five matches boring are the same things that makes them wonderful. The first week of a Slam can be great because of early leads that turn into unexpected comebacks, four-hour epics that push late into the night and matches that are emotional roller coasters with a dozen changes of momentum. Take away the best-of-five and you lose the greatness of that Lukas Rosol upset of Nadal at Wimbledon. Isner-Mahut at Wimbledon never happens. The Isner-Nadal five-set thriller at Roland Garros would have been a first-round shock exit from Nadal instead of a stepping stone to another title.

Three-set matches don’t have as much narrative drama. Name one memorable women’s final of the past 10 years that didn’t involve Serena Williams telling a chair umpire she’s “unattractive inside.” Now think back to all the great men’s finals in the same period. With rare exceptions, every one of those matches went the distance. The five-set match carries gravitas.

(USA TODAY Sports Images)

To me, that’s the key. Five sets differentiate Slams from regular tournaments. I understand all the points in favor of best-of-three and agree that the current system is far from perfect. Still, the best-of-five format has made for so many memorable late-round matches at Slams in the past 10 years that getting rid of it would take away a fundamental part of the game.

That’s why I propose a compromise for men’s Slams: Go back to 16 seeds, play best-of-three in the first three rounds and then resume best-of-five in the fourth round, when the seeds start to meet.

I found this on FTW and wanted to share:
%link%
For more great sports stories ...
*visit For The Win: https://www.ftw.usatoday.com
*follow @ForTheWin: https://www.twitter.com/forthewin
*like FTW on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/usatodayftw